Pratyush wrote:Oh boy the mod turns every purchase into a circus. We have completed astra. With little effort it can be turned into a short range SAM. But we are going to buy an American system.

Why the constant obsession to turn astra into SRSAM when there is already QRSAM?

It's not an obsession. Just an observation as Astra has met all objectives of the test program but qrsam will require some development. Before meeting all development goals. So it will be quicker to deploy Astra in the qrsam role.

^ if you need Aim-120 for evaluation you can get 2nd hand missiles from one of its many users.

Pratyush wrote:

John wrote:Why the constant obsession to turn astra into SRSAM when there is already QRSAM?

It's not an obsession. Just an observation as Astra has met all objectives of the test program but qrsam will require some development. Before meeting all development goals. So it will be quicker to deploy Astra in the qrsam role.

Some of the components used in QRSAM is from Astra and major obstacles to turning QRSAM into viable SAM will be interception of missiles and ground launch. Astra Based SAM will also face similar challenges.

Adapting AAM for SAM purpose is not bad idea of AAM has been mass manufactured and you are looking to save some $$ at cost of capability. This is not true with Astra and you are better off to wait for QRSAM.

Karan M wrote:India is in talks for NASAMS 2 not mere NASAMS.NASAMS 2 for India will likely features advanced variants of AMRAAM and ESSM variants e.g. AMRAAM ER which is basically an ESSM with AMRAAM homing.

I see but ESSM is in same class as barak-8 when there is MR-SAM what is need for this?

C. Both S-400 and NASAMS are being purchased to protect Delhi and the metros in a bout of dhoti shivering by our politicians. Hence the super rapid acquisition. Hope it has the positive impact of ensuring they have the balls to take tough action with the reassurance they're being protected by S-400 and NASAMS.

to me nasams looks less capable than spyder which we already inducted and can always induct more.spyder has the passive IIR guided python missile also which will be good against manned platforms and give less warning.

tsarkar wrote:It has been a deliberate strategy to buy multiple systems for two reasons..

Twisting indian misry to see it as indian mastery, or make lemonade when lemons are in plenty. The realist will see the real situation.

Even when we purchased only from Russia, we purchased Kub, Osa, Strela 10 and Tunkuska missiles which have broadly similar capabilities for the same reasons I've cited above.

Even at an Indian Army platoon level, we use Carl Gustaf, RPO, 40mm MGL to complement each other. Carl Gustaf has airburst rounds, RPO has incendiary rounds. If the enemy hides behind rocks, the airburst round will get him. If inside houses, the incendiary round will burn them.

Expanding options for soldiers improves their ability to win and saves lives.

Yet people totally ignorant about operations spout nonsense about "standardisation" started as a marketing ploy by Lockheed and Pratt & Whitney to create a JSF monopoly.

Do you remember the Hawk AJT procurement last decade? The initial order was 66. For the next order of 57, BAe jacked up the prices post which MoD issued a fresh RFP for AJT following which BAe backed down, reduced the prices, and we purchased the additional 57 Hawks. Yet another order of 20 is stuck on commercials.

If you have any substance and facts to post, the it will add to a meaningful discussion, otherwise the page gets filled with emotional rants and opinionated biases on posteriors. Does wonders on the quality of discussion.

C. Both S-400 and NASAMS are being purchased to protect Delhi and the metros in a bout of dhoti shivering by our politicians. Hence the super rapid acquisition. Hope it has the positive impact of ensuring they have the balls to take tough action with the reassurance they're being protected by S-400 and NASAMS.

^ Saar, I am all for standardization, which has many benefits in industry/ military.Why does US use (arguably) only 2 main platforms, F-16 and F-15 and Euros persue a single Multirole air craft ? In fact, many of our craft , like Jaguar and Mig-27, used to be operated by them, which they have discontinued. ( UK, France, East Europe) .If there was such advantages, why so?Are we , with 5 -6 platforms, more effective than them? I think not.

The 40 mm RCL should ideally have been standardized, and both types of rounds produced for common platform.Buying different stocks of AA missiles is our weakness , not mastery. We could not develop a decent AA missile , like Derby. America has only one widely used AMRAAM (> 50 km), which works on different planes and different homing heads, warheads, RF frequencies, etc to be an effective platform.Their subs have only Mk 46 and Mk 50 torpedoes, no need Altis, Varunastra, AEG, LWT, Type 71 TEST, etc.

The common benefits are training needs are simpler, easier procurement and stocking, easier service and maintenance, greater reliability, lowering costs, and lots of other intangible benefits like safety, higher deployment no's, etc.

Lets examine them in detail. Lets use 3 samples - Su-30, Rafale & LCA - in each category of light, medium & heavy. Lets examine if there are benefits of standardization.

dinesh_kimar wrote:training needs are simpler

How? If a pilot fresh out of AFA needs 60 days to become proficient in Su-30, Rafale or LCA, how does standardization on one type make training simpler? Will the 60 days become 40 days or 20 days or 0 days? No, it will still remain 60 days. So training will still take the same amount of time. It doesnt become simpler.

We will need to have 3 instructors for a batch of 30 students of 10 each for Su-30, Rafale & LCA. Irrespective of whichever aircraft we standardize, we will still need 3 instructors for 30 students.

So how does training become simpler? It doesnt.

dinesh_kimar wrote:easier procurement

This is the biggest BS propagated by LM.

While the unit cost goes down with volumes, it doesnt become zero.. While fixed cost can be apportioned across larger number of units, variable costs will remain constant and grow over time due to inflation.

Classic example - Maruti has been building thousands of Alto units every month for decades. Have the prices of Alto been reducing over these decades? No.

Is Maruti giving Altos for free, because going by the logic of increasing volumes reduce prices, the cost of Alto should become zero by now. No.

After fixed costs have been apportioned, the variable costs remain. And no amount of extra production will bring prices down.

On the contrary, a single vendor situation is a horrible trap, because that entity will extract their pound of flesh once a monopoly is achieved. Read about the P&W F-110 engine for F-15 & F-16 and how P&W charged high and offered poor service once they achieved monopoly. The GE engine brought in competition and brought prices down and forced P&W to improve service.

dinesh_kimar wrote:and stocking

How? If a Su-30, Rafale & LCA each require a warehouse of stores, by standardizing on any one, we will still need 3 warehouses for the 3 Su-30, 3 Rafales or 3 LCAs.

How? Will the number of people required to maintain each plane reduce? Will the maintenance hours required per plane reduce,

Assuming it takes 12 people to maintain a Su30, 11 per Rafale and 10 per Tejas, I need 33 people for all three or 30 people if standardized on one. Again meagre saving. Beyond a point one cannot reduce people.

dinesh_kimar wrote:greater reliability

This one beats me. How buying only Su-30 will result in greater reliability of Su-30? How buying only LCA will result in greater reliability of LCA? Reliability is a function of design, manufacture & maintenance.

On the contrary issues like uncommanded ejection in Su-30 grounded the entire fleet. Hypoxia in F-22 grounded the entire fleet. Had we standardized on Su-30 or F-22, then your entire air force is down When these aircraft were down, other aircraft took up the workload.

Incase unforeseen problems emerge in your standardized fighter, then your entire air force goes down with it. Which is why its safer to hedge bets across multiple platforms. Chances of the same problem recurring across different designs and produced in different factories are rare.

Thanks for bringing up this point, it was funny (though no disrespect to you). Someone needs to rub in the Hypoxia issue into Lockheed's standardization discourse.

dinesh_kimar wrote:lowering costs

Discussed earlier, while fixed costs can, variable costs will remain and increase over time. So no benefits there. And corporations on creating monopoly will extort. Like BAe increasing the cost of Hawk trainers for repeat orders.

How? If I have one each of Su-30, Rafale & Tejas and 3 of Tejas, the deployment time of one vs the other wont be drastically different. Again deployment is a function of how well the aircraft are maintained.

If standardization was so good, then everyone would be driving a Maruti Alto. But since people's transportation needs are different, they use different means, like Buses, Trains, Scooters, Motorcycles, compact cars, sedans, SUVs.

Same goes for warfare. If I need to bust a bunker at Kargil, a LCA will do the job better because a large aircraft like Su-30 will be unable to maneuver between mountain peaks like LCA. If I need to take out a radar at Badin, a Su-30 will do the job better because LCA wont have the range and payload.

Standardization is a myth propagated to create monopolies by corporations.

Primarily by Lockheed ensure F-35 is the only fighter and P&W for its engine.

Tsarkar, the argument for standardization cannot be negated by using the LM as an argument. Simply because across the ages military's over the ages have always tried to have standardized weapons and training due to the advantages it brings to them.

The difference in equipment in service is because of different design vintage of equipment, that still has usable service life ahead of it. And it cannot be replaced overnight. Not because it makes the job of your enemy more complex.

The argument that different weapons make counter measures difficult. Betrays a thought process that we don't have the ability to preserve the most vital secrets of weapons we use. Or that we are unable to modify a weapon whose secrets have been penetrated.

Add to that the advantages of simplified training, spare parts management, and consumables management. Reduces cost.

The small batches purchased of different equipment further make the job integration into a diverse system more time consuming and expensive. We don't even know how well it will perform under stress when operating as a part of the whole system. Because it was never designed to operate as a part of the system.

I keep reading the words simplified training, spare parts management, and consumables management when I know from practical experience that none of them have any impact on a multi equipment scenario.

Kindly counter my posts giving examples and workings as I did. What cost is reduced? By how much? By what parameter is training simplified? And by how much is training simplified?

Pratyush wrote:The small batches purchased of different equipment

Firstly, you're incorrect in stating small batches are purchased. 18 units of Spyder and similar units of other missile are purchased that is sufficient for economies of scale.

For aircraft, two squadrons (36-40) is all that is required to get all possible benefits of economies of scale. Which is why Rafale, Su-30MKI, MiG-29, Mirage 2000, Jaguar initial orders were all 36-40 aircraft orders. They form a fully functional combat wing.

Pratyush wrote:further make the job integration into a diverse system more time consuming and expensive.

Secondly, what do you mean by integration? What is your meaning of integration? What activities are carried out under integration? Give practical examples.

For aircraft its a simple matter of training the crew - pilots and engineers. Its as easy or difficult as learning to drive and maintain a different car. Air Forces do it routinely.

For missile systems, its integration with combat networks. Again, with no rocket science. Indian Navy has integrated AK-630 with Lynx radar on Godavari, Brahmaputra, Kora and Kamorta classes, with Elta 2221 on Delhi, Ranveer classes, Elta 2248 on Kolkata and Vishakhapatnam classes, EO sights on Vikramaditya & Teg class, and original MR-123 on Veer and Kukhri classes.

All these integration were done in a jiffy

Pratyush wrote:We don't even know how well it will perform under stress when operating as a part of the whole system.

These are thoroughly tested. Like Barak missile fired from INS Vikramaditya.

Pratyush wrote:Because it was never designed to operate as a part of the system.

So what? Israeli Barak-1 was never designed to operate as a part of Soviet INS Vikramaditya.

Small batch quantities in this specific conext is referening primarily to surface to air weapons and has nothing to do with the integration of 1 one single ship or otherwise. Besides, do we know how well it is integrated in the combat management system of the ship. That it can accept seamless data from the long range radar.

Having said so I stand by my opposition to this proposed purchase of an American surface-to-air weapon system. my reasons are as follows we have acquired 18 systems of spyder. That system is integrated into our air defence network. You can either continue to purchase the spider for increased commonality of systems.

Alternatively it can be supplemented with QR Sam. Reason why I am open to the idea of doing either of these two is because the spider is already integrated into our defence network and the QR Sam will be designed for our defence network in mind. However same cannot be said of the American surface to air weapon system.

Again the quantities that have to be ordered need to be kept in mind that you cannot have a portion of your air defence network go completely useless just because you have run out of missiles to shoot at your. Which is what my primary fear is when we buy small quantities of this and small quantities of that.

We all remember the horror stories of spending ongoing running to some friendly Nation hat in hand and paying through the nose for emergency purchase or some item or the other because we have run out of it.

Similarly if we increase the purchase of spyde or replace/ suppliment it with qrsamIn. the event of a us running out of missiles in one sector during a war we will not have to totally denude any or out sectors of Sam to deal with the enemy.

Regarding the small production run of munitions and the cost component of large production run. I will draw your attention to the production of the t 34 and contrast it with the production of tiger tank and the costs of the two. One was a boutique tank and the other was the best tank of its day. Which was which I leave for you to decide.

Nam, I presume that you are referring to Franco Austrian war of 1859.

If you think about the results of the war. You will see that you rifle it self was not the problem.

abhik wrote:^^^Would it have turned out different if the austrians had 2 sets of smoking cartridge rifles?

It was the inability to co-ordinate logistics coupled with the multi lingual nature of it army with poor literacy of its soldiers, and it inability of the officer corps to communicate with the men down the line which made the Austrian army unwieldy. Resulting in defeate.

But with this the thread is totally derailed.

I suggest we don't take this any further. Or Dronacharya will have to visit this thread.

tsarkar wrote:Even at an Indian Army platoon level, we use Carl Gustaf, RPO, 40mm MGL to complement each other. Carl Gustaf has airburst rounds, RPO has incendiary rounds. If the enemy hides behind rocks, the airburst round will get him. If inside houses, the incendiary round will burn them.

Good example of multiple systems complementing each other. So what capability does NASAMS provide that will complement the Spyder-MR and MR-SAM?

^ No, my post referred to specific examples of standardization- both for air fleet and SAM systems.

1. USAF (already mentioned).2. IAF (Israel- 70 F-15 and 120 F-16, yet highest sortie rate and turn around time in the world, much better than us with 640 fighters of 5 different types).

3. Ryan Air (500+ Boeing 737-800 aircraft)

4. Easy Jet.

The Israeli s have standardized on python/derby/spyder for their tactical SAM. ( same family I believe).Their air controllers who have to face 6 Arab countries with variety of aircraft and missiles seem unperturbed.

WTF! Hands down one of the most puzzling and seemingly daft decisions made by the MoD..when there are SpyDers, Akash Mk1 and Akash NG in the works, what is this for?! Its basically an American equivalent of SpyDer, with air to air missiles converted into SAMs. So how is it sensible to get a new type with the other 2 types in service? What about the QR-SAM?!

With so many higher priority items that have no funding, why is $1 billion being wasted on this wasted purchase, that too only for the Delhi area?

We have the QR-SAM, I really cannot fathom why the MoD isn't investing that much money into getting it into initial service. DRDO has even got this ready for QR-SAM

The #DRDO developed mobile launcher for QRSAM Features complete Missile Firing Capability from 10-60° and Azimuth 360 ° .Quick Deployment and Launching of Canisterised Missiles from uneven grounds .Automatic High Speed Deployment System and cross country mobility

nam wrote:You cannot blindly standardise on one capability, as a emerging tech can made the asset absolete suddenly. Specially when these are imported assets.

Correct. We faced the block obsolescence problem with the MiG-21 manufactured from 1968 to 1984. In the 90s we found 60-70% of the fleet obsolete.

A more critical issue is countermeasures. If a countermeasure is discovered by the enemy, then it leads to a slaughter.

Or a critical flaw like Su-30 uncommanded ejections or F-22 hypoxia caused by lack of oxygen or Jaguar hydraulic issue that is popularly quoted at Bharat Rakshak. Solutions for serious problems cannot be found in a jiffy and you need other aircraft to take up the workload when a type is grounded. Same for missile systems. Somehow no one is taking cognizance of these real life issues.

abhik wrote:^^^Would it have turned out different if the austrians had 2 sets of smoking cartridge rifles?

When you have Jaguar and MiG-27 as ground attack aircraft and Jaguar starts crashing with reason yet to be found, then MiG-27 offers insurance while Jaguar fleet is grounded.

Pratyush wrote:Small batch quantities in this specific conext is referening primarily to surface to air weapons and has nothing to do with the integration of 1 one single ship or otherwise.

Your statement defies logic. I gave the example of one ship to state how even a one off integration is successful and done in a very short timeframe. It is the smallest possible quantity (1 ship/platform) with a different missile system. Just because you have cognitive dissonance doesnt make Barak 1 on INS Vikramaditya disappear or unsuccessful.

Pratyush wrote:Besides, do we know how well it is integrated in the combat management system of the ship. That it can accept seamless data from the long range radar.

If you take off your blinkers and see any photo of INS Vikramaditya, then you'll find Russian Fregat & Podberezovik radars that provide targeting information for Barak-1 via combat management system. The Elta 2221 then provides guidance information to the missile.

Again if without blinkers you read the Indian Navy statement "The target was successfully engaged and destroyed" then obviously everything is well integrated and works fine.

Did you even read the Indian Navy statement or seen the sensors and weapons systems on INS Vikramaditya from 100s of photos on the internet before making your statements?

Pratyush wrote:We all remember the horror stories of spending ongoing running to some friendly Nation hat in hand and paying through the nose for emergency purchase or some item or the other because we have run out of it.

Those horror stories are precisely because the vendor on seeing our emergency jacked up prices. Having multiple systems enables us play one vendor against the other, keep prices low and makes procurement easy. As we have seen, whether Russian, Israeli, French or British, all of them play hardball once they get a monopoly.

Seriously, folks, no one here is taking cognizance of the basic fact that monopoly results in vendors inflating prices making procurement of additional missiles or spares very difficult. Apart from block obsolescence and countermeasures listed above.

Pratyush wrote:Again the quantities that have to be ordered need to be kept in mind that you cannot have a portion of your air defence network go completely useless just because you have run out of missiles to shoot at your.

Procurement is an encompassing function, whether 1 each of 3 systems or 3 of 1 system. Standardization results in a monopoly that results in repeat orders getting stuck in commercial negotiations.

Pratyush wrote:Regarding the small production run of munitions and the cost component of large production run. I will draw your attention to the production of the t 34 and contrast it with the production of tiger tank and the costs of the two.

Thank you for bringing up this example.

I am sure you remember that the Russians in the same timeframe produced KV tanks and IS tanks in parallel to T-34.

It will form one level of Israel's future multi-tiered missile defense system that Israel is developing, which will also include Arrow 2, Arrow 3, Iron Dome, and Barak 8[10] and Iron Beam from as early as 2018.

That was a big mistake , Most of these other so call diversification was because of Design Beurau Top Boss close to Communist Party Chief of CCCP and they would lobby and get their project approved. It was a political decision less of military one.

Standardisation is the key to reduce logistics overhead and OPEX and Block Model approach is the best way forward.

Most of Indian Armed forces diversification is due to its desire to maintain political balance between East and West , So Arms from all were purchased the same tradition continues till date.

It will form one level of Israel's future multi-tiered missile defense system that Israel is developing, which will also include Arrow 2, Arrow 3, Iron Dome, and Barak 8[10] and Iron Beam from as early as 2018.